August 10th, 2005
No surprises with the Booker Longlist
In the past I’ve had a good ol’ rant about Book Prizes being hijacked by PR folk. It’s a reality that marketing can dictate buyer choice when it comes to cars, toothpaste and chocolate, so why not books? If Hugh Grant can be a Whitbread judge and Richard & Judy’s bookclub can tell us what to read, why shouldn’t high brow literary prizes be exempt from massive marketing campaigns. Many of us heading off on holidays will scoop up Waterstones 3 For 2 books. Chances are you’ll pick the ones festooned with ‘winner of this’ and ’shortlisted for that’ if you feel a bit out of the literary loop.
Today the longlist for the 2005 Man Booker Prize was announced. Not so long ago, there was only one list. Now it’s longlist, then shortlist, followed by the eventual prize-giving and PR people rubbing their hands, knowing that ‘longlist’ or ’shortlist’ sticker on a book still means extra sales.
As much as I grumble about this interventionism, I am delighted to see two worthy books on the shortlist, by two authors I interviewed earlier this year. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro is a disturbing, brilliantly written book that deserves to win the prize. John Banville is also on list for his very fine book The Sea. Irish hopes are high with Sebastian Barry getting a nod for his wartime tale A Long Long Way and William Wall’s This is The Country.
However, the list seems to be, well, quite uninspiring and very predictable. Double booker winners J.M. Coatzee and Ian McEwan are on there (even if John Banville concluded that McEwan’s Saturday was “a dismayingly bad book” in The New York Review of Books). Also in the running are - surprise, surprise - Zadie Smith, Julian Barnes, Ali Smith, Salman Rushdie and Marina Lewycka. Lewycka was also shortlisted for this year’s Orange Fiction Prize for her book A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian. She is only one of three first time authors included in the Booker running, along with Tash Aw and Harry Thompson. It’s also worth noting that Zadie Smith’s On Beauty and Salman Rushdie’s Shalimar The Clown haven’t even been published yet.
So while there are some meritorious books included, there are no shocks or upsets. But then with stg£50,000 on the table, who’s going to give it someone no one has heard of? (DBC Pierre anyone?)
August 11th, 2005 at 1:55 am
Since 1994’s Kelman win, the Man Booker has been worryingly safe.
August 11th, 2005 at 9:43 am
You’re right there Sinead. This years Man Booker seems like a roundup of the usual suspects. Because The Clown and On Beauty have yet to be published Salman Rushdie and Zadie Smith should not be in the running for the prize. You have to ask the question though who decides the rules.
I’m a bit sceptical about Richard and Judy’s bookclub and I can’t help but cast a cold eye over H&H awarding a prize for Irish novel of the year. Anyway who gave them the right to decide the Irish novel of the year?
The whole longlist thing is just an excuse to increase sales.
August 11th, 2005 at 6:04 pm
Well, books yet to be published have always been eligable, so no change there.
August 12th, 2005 at 9:02 am
To be honest Sinead I haven’t read any of books on the list. I did hear Barnes being interviewed on the radio though and “Arthur and George” sounds like a good read.
August 20th, 2005 at 10:48 pm
actually joe, H&H just sponsor the award and there is a judging panel of authors etc that decide the book. the long list is in the independent each week and the winning book each week is shortlisted. and from next year i think there is going to be a new format where the public actually votes for one award. not fantastic by any means but it tends to give the award to reasonably good books - choosing havoc in its third year against the master was slightly surprising.